I don't agree at all. I think he was able to give a clear and accurate analysis of why lisp failed, despite liking the language so much. He also wrote critical responses to his own essay under a pseudonym, with a back and forth that is quite funny and demonstrates the ability to understand both sides of the argument. In "Worse is better" he explicitly mentions how that approach favors real-world application, because it is so simple it is fast and is "good enough" and then can be moved to 90% of the right thing.
All of this is to say: I don't agree with you, but I also agree with you and I suspect he would as well, with qualifications. And he would probably also disagree with you.
Not buying it. He still says "worse" and still writes "90%". What he means is "not conforming to my personal value system". He is dodging the crucial step of discovering how his personal value system got so off-kilter as to lead him to wrong choices, and fixing it.
All of this is to say: I don't agree with you, but I also agree with you and I suspect he would as well, with qualifications. And he would probably also disagree with you.